<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (1) TMI 1050 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209405</link>
    <description>Cable trays fabricated from steel sheets were held not to fall within the declared-goods expression &quot;iron and steel&quot; in section 14(iv)(vii) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the statutory list is exhaustive and the trays emerged as distinct commercial commodities after substantial processing, including cutting, punching, bending, welding and galvanizing. Interest under section 27(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act was also upheld because the returns were found not true and correct, the omission to disclose taxability was held willful, and no infirmity was shown in that finding. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 08 May 2014 12:45:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=182854" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (1) TMI 1050 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209405</link>
      <description>Cable trays fabricated from steel sheets were held not to fall within the declared-goods expression &quot;iron and steel&quot; in section 14(iv)(vii) of the Central Sales Tax Act because the statutory list is exhaustive and the trays emerged as distinct commercial commodities after substantial processing, including cutting, punching, bending, welding and galvanizing. Interest under section 27(1) of the Delhi Sales Tax Act was also upheld because the returns were found not true and correct, the omission to disclose taxability was held willful, and no infirmity was shown in that finding. Both questions were answered in favour of the Revenue.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>VAT and Sales Tax</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 24 Jan 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=209405</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>